Bell v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

Full title: EDWARD BELL, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jan 8, 2007

CIVIL CASE NO. 06-11550 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL CASE NO. 06-11550.

January 8, 2007

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAUL GADOLA, District Judge

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, first filed his Complaint against Defendants on March 31, 2006. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer, issued on November 30, 2006. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge notified all the parties that any objections must be filed within ten days of service. Defendants did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. On December 8, 2006, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Objection." In this document, Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed due to lack of federal question jurisdiction, lack of federal diversity jurisdiction, res judicata, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Instead, Plaintiff only objects to the characterization of the factual history set out in the Report and Recommendation. After a review of the Report and Recommendation and other applicable portions of the record, the Court does not find that the Magistrate Judge's recitation of the factual history to be inaccurate. More importantly, since the parties do not object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions, this Court will accept and adopt the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of this Court.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [docket entry 83] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of federal court jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's January 4, 2007 motion to dismiss [docket entry 86] is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action, No. 06-11550, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.